Top-down unionism in Venezuela

[syndicat]

From a review of a detailed leftist critique of the Chavez movement in Venezuela:

http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/venezuelafrombelow.htm


Unionism Top-down
Another top-down base-building strategy pursued by the Chavez government is the creation of labor organizations "from above and by decree." This is another case where Chavez follows in the footsteps of the earlier top-down populism of the Acción Democratica. The Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) had originally been created in 1947 in a top-down fashion. AD instigated a union congress that created a CTV executive committee made up solely of AD party militants. "When Hugo Chavez assumed office," writes Uzcategui, "his intent to control the labor movement was evident from day one." In Venezuela a government body controls union elections. Elections for leadership of CTV were delayed for two years while Chavez's forces built the Bolivarian Workers Front as an internal electoral caucus in the CTV. Huge state resources were deployed in the campaign to gain control of CTV. A mass meeting was held in the Caracas Polyhedron — a large venue — and "participants were transported from all over Venezuela in thousands of buses." Despite these efforts, the Accion Democratica slate won the elections.



After that defeat, the Chavez forces then moved to create a new union federation, Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT — National Union of Workers). When UNT was created, all of its directors had been appointed from above. According to leftist union current Opción Obrera (Labor Option), "there were few authentic directors from a labor background." A congress was not called for three years. In 2008 Opción Obrera wrote,
"The internal crisis of UNT persists and worsens to this day....The pro-government CTV practices that were criticized are now being repeated by the leaders of UNT who deliver themselves unconditionally to the government."



The incorporation of labor organizations into the Chavista party, PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), has been another tactic for control of the labor movement. In March 2007 Chavez said in a speech:
"The unions should not be autonomous...It's necessary to do away with this."



Orlando Chirino is a revolutionary socialist and former unionist in the textile industry who was the first National Coordinator of UNT and a leader of one of the leftist tendencies in it: Corriente Clasista, Unitaria, Revolucionaria y Autonoma (Class-conscious, Unitary, Revolutionary and Autonomous Current). Chirino had been active in the fight against the right-wing coup against Chavez in 2002 — in which CTV supported the conservative opposition — and thus had gotten involved in the effort to form a new national labor organization. But he very quickly developed conflicts with the appointed directors and eventually broke with the Chavez movement. Chirino is particularly critical of the Chavez government's dictatorial stance towards workers in the public sector, expressed in the unwillingness to negotiate with the worker organizations:



"I want to indicate the most important collective accords that have been violated. We'll start with the public workers, approximately two and a half million workers. It's been five years, from December 2004, since their contract standards have been discussed, and this is very grave. This has resulted in 70 percent of public workers being minimum-wage workers, which is to say that we're a country of minimum-wage workers. It's been three years since the educators' collective bargaining agreement expired; the electrical workers, approximately 36,000 of them, had their contract expire last year; and the petroleum workers over the last ten years have lost important gains."



Wages at the state oil company (PDVSA) were frozen from 2007 to 2009 while inflation was 66.5 percent. Uzcategui quotes an oil worker (from the leftist website laclase.info) on the result: "Many workers hold second jobs such as taxi driver or cleaning product salesman." This oil worker mentions other problems at PDVSA:


Failure to supply safety equipment
Elimination of overtime pay
Inequities and discrimination in payment of wages
Criminalization of labor demands by the workers

The government has also refused to allow new elections for union representatives at PDVSA. About a year ago I interviewed another member of the El Libertario collective, Rodolfo Montes de Oca. He is a young lawyer who was working at that time with the radical oppositionists in the oil workers union (anarchists, Trotskyists, and so on). He says they had petitioned five times for new union elections and each time they were denied. He said the head of the union was not regarded as very effective by the radical workers. He believed that the government wouldn't allow a new election because the union head was a Chavista.
The Caracas Metro provides another example of Chavez labor policy. The workers there had held negotiations with the government representative for a year and a half and reached an agreement. But Chavez and his new director of the Metro refused to accept the new agreement. If they were to strike, Chavez said he would militarize the Metro and fire the workers. The Chavez government had two police agencies, DISIP (the political police) and DIM (military intelligence) participate in these threats. Community councils were mobilized against the Metro workers as well. Chirino describes what happened then:



"And so, without consulting with the workers,...the directors of the union who were members of the PSUV [Chavez's party] went along with the government demands and rolled back most of the previous gains won."
Orlando Chirino says that in his 34 years in the labor movement, he's "never seen the extreme to which we're arrived today with the criminalization of protests....For example, when you're...handing out flyers at a factory gate, speaking through a megaphone, participating in an assembly, they use the repressive bodies of the state to detain the leaders, take them to jail, and while in jail they accuse them. This ends up with union militants being prohibited from going near the businesses where they do their political work, under the legitimate rights of free expression and organization."

[black magick hustla]

its an ancient "strongman" latin american strategy for large bourgeois parties to decree their own labor unions. chavez is along the same line of continuity as alvaro obregon and his "mexican socialism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_Obregon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) You posted this a year ago.
2) Orlando Chirino has since before 2010 become a political scab.
3) Independent, sociopolitical syndicalism is needed in Venezuela.
4) Amongst the more bourgeois/yellow unions, I prefer the pro-government unions for the same reasons Lenin had zero problems with police-organized/controlled unions back in his day (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-organized-labour-t156007/index.html).

[RED DAVE]

Amongst the more bourgeois/yellow unions, I prefer the pro-government unions for the same reasons Lenin had zero problems with police-organized/controlled unions back in his day (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-organized-labour-t156007/index.html).How about independent, demcratic unions, or don't they fit into your political landscape?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You apparently didn't read Point #3 above. :glare:

[ModelHomeInvasion]

Purity campaigns are best conducted using a water pill and 5 laxatives.

[RED DAVE]

^^^ You apparently didn't read Point #3 above. :glare:You're right. I apologize. ;)

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

1) You posted this a year ago.No i did not. the article cited has only just been written a week ago.



2) Orlando Chirino has before 2010 become a political scab.evidence? and "scab" is in relation to labor struggles. what labor struggles are you talking about? by prefixing "political" I gather you mean that a person whose political views are at odds with you...or at odds with the state bureaucrats and caudillo in Venezuela...becomes a "scab." this is a stalinist view since it legitimizes use of repressive means against those who you disagree with or who disagree with the state party.


3) Independent, sociopolitical syndicalism is needed in Venezuela.Independent of what, who? "sociopolitical syndicalism' is another of your bizarre neologisms used to mask your authoritarian partyism.

certainly an independent worker-controlled unonism is needed in Venezuela...independent of the parties and bureaucrats and bosses.



4) Amongst the more bourgeois/yellow unions, I prefer the pro-government unions for the same reasons Lenin had zero problems with police-organized/controlled unions back in his day (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-organized-labour-t156007/index.html). how about an authentic worker-controlled unionism? seems to be beyond your ability to think along those lines.

you talk of "yellow unions" but all the critics of the Chavez labor policy quoted in the book are from radical left labor tendencies. it's the pro-government union bureaucrats who are "yellow".

[syndicat]

Purity campaigns are best conducted using a water pill and 5 laxatives.

so we know that for you worker control of their own unions and worker control of the society is not an important consideration.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No i did not. the article cited has only just been written a week ago.

Well, the book itself was written in 2010, at a time when Chavez made rants against public sector workers (reported in the Wall Street Journal of all places), so I wanted to put things into perspective.


evidence? and "scab" is in relation to labor struggles. what labor struggles are you talking about? by prefixing "political" I gather you mean that a person whose political views are at odds with you...or at odds with the state bureaucrats and caudillo in Venezuela...becomes a "scab." this is a stalinist view since it legitimizes use of repressive means against those who you disagree with or who disagree with the state party.

I am referring to Chirino's scabby actions leading to and during the 2007 referendum.


Independent of what, who? "sociopolitical syndicalism' is another of your bizarre neologisms used to mask your authoritarian partyism.

certainly an independent worker-controlled unonism is needed in Venezuela...independent of the parties and bureaucrats and bosses.

When I wrote my commentary on the subject, it's true that Sociopolitical Syndicalism was intended to be another institutional expression of the party-movement principle. That, in fact, remains so. Even comrade Kiev, with whom I have disagreements here and there, recognizes the need for traditionally economic organs to wage political struggles as a guard against "vanguardism" and tred-iunionizm.

The IWW keeps failing because it hasn't become a political organization. And no, "the economic is political" and "point of production" arguments don't count. So, "socio" refers to the positives derived from "social movement unionism," "syndicalism" refers to getting past traditional unionism, and "political" refers to DeLeon's SIU but from a more partyist angle, for the mass party-movement of the working class is itself the "class for itself."


how about an authentic worker-controlled unionism? seems to be beyond your ability to think along those lines.

you talk of "yellow unions" but all the critics of the Chavez labor policy quoted in the book are from radical left labor tendencies. it's the pro-government union bureaucrats who are "yellow".

I said "amongst the more bourgeois/yellow unions" for a reason. That implies the need for a Sociopolitical Syndicate to be formed at their expense (as opposed to non-statist calls to "reform the unions").

[syndicat]

I am referring to Chirino's scabby actions leading to and during the 2007 referendum.

you mean the fact he opposed it? given that the referendum would allow the caudillo to extend his stay in office and ratify the "mixed enterprises" that are the means by which Chavez has given away huge concessions to the multinational energy firms, opposing it was the right thing to do, and various people in the radical left did also.

but by calling him a "scab" you're saying that people who disagree with the caudillo should be repressed, because that's what it means to call someone a scab. you're just ratifying again that you're a stalinist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

you mean the fact he opposed it? given that the referendum would allow the caudillo to extend his stay in office and ratify the "mixed enterprises" that are the means by which Chavez has given away huge concessions to the multinational energy firms, opposing it was the right thing to do, and various people in the radical left did also.

Which multinational energy firms? It has been a tendency for the Chavez government to prefer state-owned energy companies as joint venture partners, as opposed to private-public joint ventures, and as opposed to the failed Mexican state energy model or the questionable Saudi state energy model (state monopolies without even foreign state involvement).


But by calling him a "scab" you're saying that people who disagree with the caudillo should be repressed, because that's what it means to call someone a scab. you're just ratifying again that you're a stalinist.

There were various communal power and radical labour measures that were proposed in that referendum, along with measures combating bourgeois federalism. Why are you calling an admirer of the pre-war SPD structure "Stalinist"?

BTW, the "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary, de facto] monarchy" is a very specific phenomenon, as noted by my History thread on Gramsci and other threads on managed democracy.

[syndicat]

Which multinational energy firms? It has been a tendency for the Chavez government to prefer state-owned energy companies as joint venture partners, as opposed to private-public joint ventures, and as opposed to the failed Mexican state energy model or the questionable Saudi state energy model (state monopolies without even foreign state involvement).wrong. you need to read the section of the review that discusses this.

Chevron is the largest private oil producer in venezuela, with six concessions so far. Chavez delivered to them a massive gas concession. there are numerous other private multi-national energy firms that have partial ownership of "mixed enterprises" to exploit Venezuela's oil & gas. "Mixed enterprises" were an innovation of the Chavez government. previously the private oil firms had mere service contracts and PDVSA (the state oil company) had absolute ownership over the oil resources and production. in a "mixed enterprise" the state typically owns 51 to 60 percent and the private multinational owns the rest. this represents a partial de-nationalization of the country's oil & gas resources, which were nationalized in 1976.

Chavez set up a state company to start coal mining in the mountains that border Colombia...a project suggested by a Dutch multinational. the state company built a railway and port facilities and delivers the coal to the foreign capitalist firm. in doing this the Chavez government is trampling on the largest indigenous community in Venezuela, who live in those mountains. coal mining will deforest the mountains and destroy the water resources that the indigenous community needs.

[black magick hustla]

Purity campaigns are best conducted using a water pill and 5 laxatives.

ur funnie where did u learn that joke was it from a webncomic????????

[Die Neue Zeit]

wrong. you need to read the section of the review that discusses this.

Chevron is the largest private oil producer in venezuela, with six concessions so far. Chavez delivered to them a massive gas concession. there are numerous other private multi-national energy firms that have partial ownership of "mixed enterprises" to exploit Venezuela's oil & gas. "Mixed enterprises" were an innovation of the Chavez government. previously the private oil firms had mere service contracts and PDVSA (the state oil company) had absolute ownership over the oil resources and production. in a "mixed enterprise" the state typically owns 51 to 60 percent and the private multinational owns the rest. this represents a partial de-nationalization of the country's oil & gas resources, which were nationalized in 1976.

Chavez set up a state company to start coal mining in the mountains that border Colombia...a project suggested by a Dutch multinational. the state company built a railway and port facilities and delivers the coal to the foreign capitalist firm. in doing this the Chavez government is trampling on the largest indigenous community in Venezuela, who live in those mountains. coal mining will deforest the mountains and destroy the water resources that the indigenous community needs.

Six joint ventures with Chevron? The author didn't mention the number of joint ventures with Gazprom, Petrobras, PetroChina, Petronas, PetroVietnam, Statoil... those kinds of energy companies! I'd like to know how many joint ventures there are in Venezuela in total, because the likes of even this site don't list them:

http://205.254.135.24/emeu/cabs/Venezuela/Oil.html

Again, if the private oil companies are crowded out more and more by foreign state-owned energy companies, then that's a good thing.

[syndicat]

1. all of the "joint ventures" mentioned by the author are with big private oil companies like BP and Chevron, big Spanish and Indian private oil companies, a coal mining deal with a big Dutch capitalist firm. you're just engaging in irrelevant, off the wall speculation. why am i not surprised?

2. second, it makes no difference if the joint ventures are with state oil companies. those are all exploitative class societies that own the companies you mention, and those firms are essentially forms of state capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1. all of the "joint ventures" mentioned by the author are with big private oil companies like BP and Chevron, big Spanish and Indian private oil companies, a coal mining deal with a big Dutch capitalist firm. you're just engaging in irrelevant, off the wall speculation. why am i not surprised?

You're the one who went off topic by discussing "mixed enterprises." I just said that Chirino became a political scab at the time of the referendum. I wonder what his politics and general union politics in Venezuela are like today, with the presidential elections coming up and the PSUV regrouping from its National Assembly setback against the liberal opposition.

[syndicat]

you're repeating yourself.


You're the one who went off topic by discussing "mixed enterprises." I just said that Chirino became a political scab at the time of the referendum.as i said before, you have never said what the evidence is for this charge, nor even what you mean. how can a set of propositions introduced by a military caudillo be a worker struggle? among the various propositions Chavez proposed were further vindications of his handover of ownership to foreign private energy firms via "mixed enterprises." if you think the 2007 referendum was a class fight, let's see you defend that proposition.

moreover, it demonizes people for having a different viewpoint and essentially says it is okay to repress them.

that's why i say your viewpoint is stalinist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

how can a set of propositions introduced by a military caudillo be a worker struggle? among the various propositions Chavez proposed were further vindications of his handover of ownership to foreign private energy firms via "mixed enterprises." if you think the 2007 referendum was a class fight, let's see you defend that proposition.

You're coming from a syndicalist POV. Legislative propositions and pressure can be a form of class struggle, which again I hold to be "politico-political" and not economic. Among them also was a set of further restrictions against foreign political funding. While this in theory would prohibit worker-class movements abroad from sending funds to a Venezuelan section, right now the main concern is liberal bourgeois opposition from abroad.

[RED DAVE]

Again, if the private oil companies are crowded out more and more by foreign state-owned energy companies, then that's a good thing.Why would you say that?

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

You're coming from a syndicalist POV. Legislative propositions and pressure can be a form of class struggle, which again I hold to be "politico-political" and not economic. Among them also was a set of further restrictions against foreign political funding. While this in theory would prohibit worker-class movements abroad from sending funds to a Venezuelan section, right now the main concern is liberal bourgeois opposition from abroad. you're out of your fucking mind. here we have a proposed set of constitutional changes introduced not by an autonomous working class movement but by a military caudillo, a member of the bureaucratic class, entirely top down, who is in no way accountable to the working class, and you somehow interpret his proposals as a working class fight...even tho his proposals eliminate term limits for the presidency and further open the door to foreign ownership by capital of Venezuela's energy resources.

and, by the way, you're wrong that being a syndicalist means i'm against voting in referendums of any sort. It can be important to vote in referendums to oppose anti-worker measures or to favor positive enhancements in society. In California there is the initiative so in theory a pro-working class initiative could be put on the ballot. Initiatives are a form of direct democracy, tho distorted and misused within capitalism due to money power & corporate media control.

But a "scab" is someone who is stealing someone's job by crossing a picket line.

you're following along with the "either you're with us or you're against us" line of the Chavista populists. but this merely "crowds out" an autonomous working class position, it discourages working class independence from the top-down state controlled Chavista movement. it's a false choice because the capitalist opposition and the Chavista movement are not the only options.

moreover, if the Chavez government is acting in an anti-worker manner towards workers in the public sector...and the book review gives sources for this from a variety of people including Chirino...then how can it be "anti-working class" to disagree with the Chavez government?

you criticize Chirino but your argument is dishonest because the only thing he is quoted about in the review is the hostility of the Chavez government to public worker unionism. so rather than try to answer this charge, you try throwing sand in the air by bringing up some other issue. Even if Chirino were wrong about that, this doesn't show that what he says is false in regard to the Chavez government stance towards public workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

second, it makes no difference if the joint ventures are with state oil companies. those are all exploitative class societies that own the companies you mention, and those firms are essentially forms of state capitalism.


Why would you say that?

I say that for the same reasons Engels saw no negatives with capitalist nationalization from the perspective of the working class, apart from blatant bailouts ("nationalize" only to re-privatize shortly after).

[Die Neue Zeit]

you're out of your fucking mind. here we have a proposed set of constitutional changes introduced not by an autonomous working class movement but by a military caudillo, a member of the bureaucratic class, entirely top down, who is in no way accountable to the working class, and you somehow interpret his proposals as a working class fight

It may not have been introduced by an independent proletarian demographic minority, but it was supported by this. As for the "military caudillo" stereotype:

A) It's overblown;
B) It's merely a reflection of a particular reality with proletarian demographic minorities: the prevalence of peasant patrimonialism;
C) So long as urban "national" petit-bourgeois democratism and peasant patrimonialism do not threaten the politico-ideological independence of the proletarian demographic minority, those two forces of the National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie must be supported as the leading political forces of the society.


even tho his proposals eliminate term limits for the presidency

Being someone who supports demarchic/random selections (and not the Classical Aristocratic principle of elections) for worker-class movements and subsequent proletarian demographic majorities taking power, I don't really care about the fuss about term limits.


and, by the way, you're wrong that being a syndicalist means i'm against voting in referendums of any sort. It can be important to vote in referendums to oppose anti-worker measures or to favor positive enhancements in society. In California there is the initiative so in theory a pro-working class initiative could be put on the ballot. Initiatives are a form of direct democracy, tho distorted and misused within capitalism due to money power & corporate media control.

The likes of the IWW explicitly claim to be non-political. The IWW itself doesn't even take up positions in referendums. That's raw economism, no matter how much anti-capitalist, post-capitalist, socialist, communist, and similar economic theory is propagated to the membership or prospective candidates. That's throwing out the window the immediate goal of politico-ideological independence before the race has started (unlike mass party-movement organization in its various forms).


But a "scab" is someone who is stealing someone's job by crossing a picket line.

The likes of CPGB comrade Mike Macnair and myself have a broader view of the word "scab." In the political realm, for example, it has applied to certain Marxists-turned-renegades during WWI.


you're following along with the "either you're with us or you're against us" line of the Chavista populists. but this merely "crowds out" an autonomous working class position, it discourages working class independence from the top-down state controlled Chavista movement. it's a false choice because the capitalist opposition and the Chavista movement are not the only options.

You really, really need to read my post "Peoples Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered." I've stressed worker-class politico-ideological independence sufficient times there.


moreover, if the Chavez government is acting in an anti-worker manner towards workers in the public sector...and the book review gives sources for this from a variety of people including Chirino...then how can it be "anti-working class" to disagree with the Chavez government?

you criticize Chirino but your argument is dishonest because the only thing he is quoted about in the review is the hostility of the Chavez government to public worker unionism. so rather than try to answer this charge, you try throwing sand in the air by bringing up some other issue. Even if Chirino were wrong about that, this doesn't show that what he says is false in regard to the Chavez government stance towards public workers.

Why didn't Chirino petition or campaign for the 2007 referendum to have several questions instead of two? Each measure could have its own question. Then, he could campaign to have shot down the "mixed enterprises" proposal and especially the state-of-emergency proposal, while not focusing much on more pro-worker proposals.

[RED DAVE]

Again, if the private oil companies are crowded out more and more by foreign state-owned energy companies, then that's a good thing.
Why would you say that?
I say that for the same reasons Engels saw no negatives with capitalist nationalization from the perspective of the working class, apart from blatant bailouts ("nationalize" only to re-privatize shortly after).Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch, have you got nothing better to quote than something that Engels said 130 years or so again during a different phase of capitalist development?

Besides, what you said was that foreign state capitalism is, for some bizarre reason better than private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't put too much stock into decadence theory or colonial imperialism as the "highest stage of capitalism."

Engels' rebuttal is merely a secondary argument in some capitalist nationalization proposals, most notably that of the entire financial services sector, where the populist "public sovereignty, authority, control, etc. over the money supply" argument is paramount (so no more outlets like credit unions).


Besides, what you said was that foreign state capitalism is, for some bizarre reason better than private capitalism.

That's exactly what I stated, indeed.

[RED DAVE]

^^^ I don't put too much stock into decadence theory or colonial imperialism as the "highest stage of capitalism."

Engels' rebuttal is merely a secondary argument in some capitalist nationalization proposals, most notably that of the entire financial services sector, where the populist "public sovereignty, authority, control, etc. over the money supply" argument is paramount (so no more outlets like credit unions).I have no idea what you are talking about.

Can anyone else make an sense of this or is there, in fact, no sense in it?


Besides, what you said was that foreign state capitalism is, for some bizarre reason better than private capitalism.
That's exactly what I stated, indeed.And that, dude, makes you a supporter of imperialism, somehow doesn't surprise me at all.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Can anyone else make an sense of this or is there, in fact, no sense in it?

Pressuring the bourgeoisie towards capitalist nationalizations of the non-bailout type? As in, class struggle?



That's exactly what I stated, indeed.And that, dude, makes you a supporter of imperialism.

So the NEP Soviet Union, with its state capitalism, was imperialist in its foreign economic relations with Mongolia, a mere People's Republic?

[syndicat]

DNZ has run off the rails (and run off at the mouth) in a predictable way. he is merely speculating about who is involved in the mixed enterprises...in a way that ignores the facts. in the '90s politiicians in Venezuela started talking about working with the private multinationals to get more revenue for their oil. in case you are not aware of it, 60 percent of Venezuela's oil output goes to the USA. the Chinese state oil company is not involved in that trade.

when the new Bolivarian constitution was approved (without popular input as to its features) in 1999, it introduced "mixed enterprises" for the first time. It was after the defeat of the right wing coup in 2002 that Chavez began entering into these deals big time. the companies are all private multinationals suich as the 32 contracts signed in 2005. companies include Chevron, BP, the Spanish firm Repsol YPF. Chevron is by far the largest firm involved in these mixed enterprises...not surprising when we consider that 60 percent of oil goes to the USA.

Also, the big coal mining project in the Sierra de Perija is being developed by a state company set up to do this, but one of the foreign energy firms that is a customer for the coal said it wouldn't be viable if it weren't subsidized by $50 million from the state. Meanwhile, this project threatens deforestation and destruction of water resources for the largest indigenous community in Venezuela, the Wayuu, who live in that mountain range. some of their leaders, such as their rep in the National Assembly were bought off, according to spokespeople for that indigenous community.

Even if China's state oil company had some ownership of a joint venture, it would just mean the Chinese capitalist regime is participating in imperialist exploitation of Venezuela too.


The likes of the IWW explicitly claim to be non-political.bullshit. IWW is not in favor of getting involved in electoral politics or supporting parties or politicians. but politics is not limited to electoral politics.

and, once again, you refused to provide any justification for calling long time labor militant and Trotskyist Chirino a "scab."

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ has run off the rails (and run off at the mouth) in a predictable way.

The rest of your post was good, but you started off with a drivel.


the companies are all private multinationals suich as the 32 contracts signed in 2005. companies include Chevron, BP, the Spanish firm Repsol YPF. Chevron is by far the largest firm involved in these mixed enterprises...not surprising when we consider that 60 percent of oil goes to the USA.

Venezuela has been diversifying its oil trade in recent years.


Even if China's state oil company had some ownership of a joint venture, it would just mean the Chinese capitalist regime is participating in imperialist exploitation of Venezuela too.

Again, refer to my Soviet-Mongolian relations example.


bullshit. IWW is not in favor of getting involved in electoral politics or supporting parties or politicians. but politics is not limited to electoral politics.

Your second sentence is right, but your first shows the limitations of the IWW's non-electoral approach. It doesn't conduct, for instance, spoilage campaigns, again a quite political but non-electoral tactic.


once again, you refused to provide any justification for calling long time labor militant and Trotskyist Chirino a "scab."

I did, by mentioning what he could have done in 2007 instead of what he actually did.

[syndicat]

I did, by mentioning what he could have done in 2007 instead of what he actually did.

and what did he do? oppose the referendum? why does that make him a "scab"? you'll have to explain that. the Chavez government isn't a working class in power. it's a state riddled with over 300 military officers in various roles in the ministries, bureaucracy, local and state government, issuing programs and decisions top-down.

and don't repeat your babble about "demographic minorities". Venezuela is an overwhelmingly urban country.

[Die Neue Zeit]

and what did he do? oppose the referendum? why does that make him a "scab"? you'll have to explain that.

From earlier:

"Why didn't Chirino petition or campaign for the 2007 referendum to have several questions instead of two? Each measure could have its own question. Then, he could campaign to have shot down the "mixed enterprises" proposal and especially the state-of-emergency proposal, while not focusing much on more pro-worker proposals."


and don't repeat your babble about "demographic minorities". Venezuela is an overwhelmingly urban country.

Urbanization /= proletarianization

[RED DAVE]

Engels' rebuttal is merely a secondary argument in some capitalist nationalization proposals, most notably that of the entire financial services sector, where the populist "public sovereignty, authority, control, etc. over the money supply" argument is paramount (so no more outlets like credit unions).
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Can anyone else make an sense of this or is there, in fact, no sense in it?
Pressuring the bourgeoisie towards capitalist nationalizations of the non-bailout type? As in, class struggle?So what you are saying is that, in the year 2011, "capitalist nationalizations of the non-bailout type" are a legitimate goal of class struggle.

That is one of the most deeply social democratic, reformist posts you have ever made. And you've made some doozies. It's obvious that you have no idea what constitutes the content of class struggle in 2011.


Besides, what you said was that foreign state capitalism is, for some bizarre reason better than private capitalism.
That's exactly what I stated, indeed.
And that, dude, makes you a supporter of imperialism, somehow doesn't surprise me at all.
So the NEP Soviet Union, with its state capitalism, was imperialist in its foreign economic relations with Mongolia, a mere People's Republic?You are fucking unbelievable.

There is no relationship between what the Soviet Union did to try to preserve a workers state and the actions of state capitalist corporations, which are part of capitalism itself. One the other hand, it shouldn't surprise anyone that you can't tell the difference between the NEP and modern capitalism. The categories of socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, stalinism and social democracy are all swirling around in your mind like the winds of Hurricane Irene.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

you still haven't answered the question:
and what did he do? oppose the referendum? why does that make him a "scab"? you'll have to explain that. the Chavez government isn't a working class in power. it's a state riddled with over 300 military officers in various roles in the ministries, bureaucracy, local and state government, issuing programs and decisions top-down.what makes him a "scab"?

Chavez's Bolivarian Movement was not created by, and is not controlled by, the working class. It is not a working class movement.

so you make slanderous accusations, accusations that can be used to engage in violence against someone, and you provide no backup whatsoever. what a fucking ass you are.

and the peasantry are a small minority in Venezuela and Chavez populism has nothing to do with the peasantry. It has a lot to do with a history of militarism, dependent clientelism fostered by populist governments using oil revenues to provide social benefits to moderate popular discontent, and the discredit of the old parties because of their neoliberalism beginning in the late '80s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what you are saying is that, in the year 2011, "capitalist nationalizations of the non-bailout type" are a legitimate goal of class struggle.

That is one of the most deeply social democratic, reformist posts you have ever made. And you've made some doozies. It's obvious that you have no idea what constitutes the content of class struggle in 2011.

So you think that permanent nationalization of *all* financial services, for example, isn't a worthwhile campaign?


There is no relationship between what the Soviet Union did to try to preserve a workers state and the actions of state capitalist corporations, which are part of capitalism itself. One the other hand, it shouldn't surprise anyone that you can't tell the difference between the NEP and modern capitalism. The categories of socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, stalinism and social democracy are all swirling around in your mind like the winds of Hurricane Irene.

The NEP had more domestic state capitalism. However, I was writing specifically about foreign economic relations. There's no difference between what happened then, the likes of the Soviet-Egyptian Aswan Dam project, and today's joint ventures between state enterprises.

[RED DAVE]

So what you are saying is that, in the year 2011, "capitalist nationalizations of the non-bailout type" are a legitimate goal of class struggle.

That is one of the most deeply social democratic, reformist posts you have ever made. And you've made some doozies. It's obvious that you have no idea what constitutes the content of class struggle in 2011.
So you think that permanent nationalization of *all* financial services, for example, isn't a worthwhile campaign?No, I do not think that the nationalization of bourgeois financial services under a bourgeois government would be "a worthwhile campaign." And I wonder what kind of illusion you harbor about "permanent nationalization of *all* financial services," that would make you think such a campaign is worthwhile.


There is no relationship between what the Soviet Union did to try to preserve a workers state and the actions of state capitalist corporations, which are part of capitalism itself. One the other hand, it shouldn't surprise anyone that you can't tell the difference between the NEP and modern capitalism. The categories of socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, stalinism and social democracy are all swirling around in your mind like the winds of Hurricane Irene.
The NEP had more domestic state capitalism.You are raving. This makes no sense at all.


However, I was writing specifically about foreign economic relations. There's no difference between what happened then, the likes of the Soviet-Egyptian Aswan Dam project, and today's joint ventures between state enterprises.No, there is no difference. This is all, at best, state capitalism. It is capitalism. It's purpose is to aggrandize the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. If the working class receives some crumbs off the table, that does not alter the fundamental class relations.

As I have said, you seem to be unable to distinguish between state capitalism and socialism, social democracy and stalinism. They're all mushed together in your mind.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I do not think that the nationalization of bourgeois financial services under a bourgeois government would be "a worthwhile campaign." And I wonder what kind of illusion you harbor about "permanent nationalization of *all* financial services," that would make you think such a campaign is worthwhile.

I wrote about the rationale for such a campaign already above; again it has to do with the money supply.

The "Bolivarian Revolution" would be well served by a state monopoly on all financial services in Venezuela.


No, there is no difference. This is all, at best, state capitalism. It is capitalism. It's purpose is to aggrandize the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. If the working class receives some crumbs off the table, that does not alter the fundamental class relations.

As I have said, you seem to be unable to distinguish between state capitalism and socialism, social democracy and stalinism. They're all mushed together in your mind.

Um, I can distinguish between state capitalism, "socialism," and the post-monetary lower phase of the communist production quite well, thank you. :glare:

Permanent capitalist nationalizations, even at their worst, are much bigger crumbs than the best of ever-cheap welfarism.

[RED DAVE]

No, I do not think that the nationalization of bourgeois financial services under a bourgeois government would be "a worthwhile campaign." And I wonder what kind of illusion you harbor about "permanent nationalization of *all* financial services," that would make you think such a campaign is worthwhile.
I wrote about the rationale for such a campaign already above; again it has to do with the money supply.Fuck the money supply! You are advocating that a working class movement take a role in the regulation of capitalism. That's social democracy.


The Bolivarian Revolution would be well served by a state monopoly on all financial services in Venezuela.The so-called Bolivarian Revolution would be much better served by becoming a real revolution. Again, you are advocating a reform in the name of running capitalism better: social democracy.


No, there is no difference. This is all, at best, state capitalism. It is capitalism. It's purpose is to aggrandize the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. If the working class receives some crumbs off the table, that does not alter the fundamental class relations.

As I have said, you seem to be unable to distinguish between state capitalism and socialism, social democracy and stalinism. They're all mushed together in your mind.
Um, I can distinguish between state capitalism, "socialism," and the post-monetary lower phase of the communist production quite well, thank you. :glare:If that's so why are you, allegedly a Marxism and a revolutionary, advocating bourgeois reforms of a capitalist monetary system? Is this your idea of class struggle?


Permanent capitalist nationalizations, even at their worst, are much bigger crumbs than the best of ever-cheap welfarism.You're out of your mind, and your social democratic underwear is showing.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

the "Bolivarian revolution" can't become a real working class revolution except thru the emergence of autonomous, self-controlled mass movements rooted in the masses there, such as the workplace unions and other movements. but this autonomy of movements, of their ability to develop their own agenda from below, is what the bureaucrats, army officers ect in charge of the "Bolivarian process" reject.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fuck the money supply! You are advocating that a working class movement take a role in the regulation of capitalism. That's social democracy.

That's not "regulation" of capitalism at all. Regulation would be cheaper measures like breaking up banks, raising or lowering fractional reserve ratio requirements for banks, requiring banks to grant credit to certain kinds of social projects, etc.

"Democratic control of investment" has at its most basic premise public management over the whole money supply.


If that's so why are you, allegedly a Marxism and a revolutionary, advocating bourgeois reforms of a capitalist monetary system? Is this your idea of class struggle?

You're out of your mind, and your social democratic underwear is showing.

You have yet to demonstrate credible alternatives beyond cheap sloganeering.

[RED DAVE]

That's not "regulation" of capitalism at all. Regulation would be cheaper measures like breaking up banks, raising or lowering fractional reserve ratio requirements for banks, requiring banks to grant credit to certain kinds of social projects, etc.Translation: You don't know what "regulation" means.


"Democratic control of investment" has at its most basic premise public management over the whole money supply.We are not concerned with "public management over the whole money supply. We are concerned with workers control of the economy.


You have yet to demonstrate credible alternatives beyond cheap sloganeering.You are a social democrat. Every post you make about economics shows it. You have never demonstrated any real interest in or understanding of workers control of the economy from the workplace on up.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Translation: You don't know what "regulation" means.

I'm more inclined to trust legal experts and law teachers on the definition of "regulation" over your perceived definition.


We are not concerned with "public management over the whole money supply. We are concerned with workers control of the economy.

"Workers control" is again slippery, but there is both a Worker Control Movement and Co-Management policies in the country.

[syndicat]

Worker Control Movement and Co-Management policies in the countryyou talking about Venezuela? "co-management" means state bureaucrats are in charge. Let's consider the film "Five Factories: Workers Control in Venezuela." Two of the factories discussed in that film are the Alcasa aluminum plant and Invepal paper factory. What did "worker control" mean at Alcasa? Management hired some people to teach "political-ideological" courses. They used various citations from Marx, Gramsci, whoever, but never talked about conditiions at the factory. "comanagement" meant that 3 workers were elected to the management council. altho worker "roundtables" took place, they didn't discuss production but things like cleaning the restroom and the distribution of work clothes.

Many workers who did various services were organized into coops as a form of outsourcing. they did not have the right to participate in "comanagement" and were paid less. The book discussed in the review cited in the OP talks quite a bit about Alcasa and Invepal. The author interviewed two Germans who did extensive interviews with workers there. These two Germans had seen the documentary "Five Factories" and were excited by it. But they said in the interview with the author that things at these factories were very different than portrayed in the documentary. Alcasa is only producing at 60 percent capacity, the equipment is old, and it is destroying the workers' lungs due to aluminum dust. The Germans said: "No worker we talked with spoke about participation in the strategic planning regarding the work process or administration."

At invepal again coops were used to deny worker rights. the workers were forced to buy 49 percent of the decrepit, obsolete plant, with the government retaining 51 percent. this meant the government appoints the boss of the factory. The Germans who talked to the workers there said none of the workers had ever heard of the film "Five Factories."

because the workers were in a coop, they could not legally make any demands, such as over wages. it was a way to keep them from organizing as a union and making demands.

[Die Neue Zeit]

you talking about Venezuela? "co-management" means state bureaucrats are in charge. Let's consider the film "Five Factories: Workers Control in Venezuela." Two of the factories discussed in that film are the Alcasa aluminum plant and Invepal paper factory. What did "worker control" mean at Alcasa? Management hired some people to teach "political-ideological" courses. They used various citations from Marx, Gramsci, whoever, but never talked about conditiions at the factory. "comanagement" meant that 3 workers were elected to the management council. altho worker "roundtables" took place, they didn't discuss production but things like cleaning the restroom and the distribution of work clothes.

I'm not one to give cover to opportunistic implementations of co-management, but this sounds awfully a lot more like Germany's co-determination than what Marxists in Venezuela would like.


Many workers who did various services were organized into coops as a form of outsourcing. they did not have the right to participate in "comanagement" and were paid less. The book discussed in the review cited in the OP talks quite a bit about Alcasa and Invepal. The author interviewed two Germans who did extensive interviews with workers there. These two Germans had seen the documentary "Five Factories" and were excited by it. But they said in the interview with the author that things at these factories were very different than portrayed in the documentary. Alcasa is only producing at 60 percent capacity, the equipment is old, and it is destroying the workers' lungs due to aluminum dust. The Germans said: "No worker we talked with spoke about participation in the strategic planning regarding the work process or administration."

What's the political orientation of the German visitors, if you don't mind my asking? Radicals or soc-dems (again tied to the co-determination problem)?


Because the workers were in a coop, they could not legally make any demands, such as over wages. it was a way to keep them from organizing as a union and making demands.

Here's yet another example where Lassalle's slogan for "producer cooperatives with state aid" would be most useful. At the very least, such de facto labour cooperatives should be entitled to wage subsidies. :(

[syndicat]

What's the political orientation of the German visitors, if you don't mind my asking? Radicals or soc-dems (again tied to the co-determination problem)?


it doesn't matter. in the interview with them they were simply reporting the facts. what the workers said.


Here's yet another example where Lassalle's slogan for "producer cooperatives with state aid" would be most useful. At the very least, such de facto labour cooperatives should be entitled to wage subsidies.

you're missing the point as usual. the point is about bargaining power, and how coops, because they're businesses, are used to diminish the legal ability of workers to have bargaining power in relation to management.

[Die Neue Zeit]

it doesn't matter. in the interview with them they were simply reporting the facts. what the workers said.

It does matter, particular if they're soc-dems trying to score brownie points for German co-determination.


you're missing the point as usual. the point is about bargaining power, and how coops, because they're businesses, are used to diminish the legal ability of workers to have bargaining power in relation to management.

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm stressing the need for politics, tackling the state and state policy head-on, and so on. You're only focusing on "bargaining power," the matter of mere labour disputes.

[syndicat]

It does matter, particular if they're soc-dems trying to score brownie points for German co-determination.

you're not paying attention. they were criticizing the absence of workers actually having control. when they saw the documentary "Five Factories", it touts Alcasa as a case of worker control. they were excited by this...enough to go to Venezuela to see first hand. so they obviously support worker control. they found there was no such thing at Alcasa.


I'm not missing the point at all. I'm stressing the need for politics, tackling the state and state policy head-on, and so on. You're only focusing on "bargaining power," the matter of mere labour disputes.

bargaining power is bargaining power in society. it isn't just about with this or that employer. you're being your usual social democratic self, advocating the ridiculous idea of the working class someone running the state.

[RED DAVE]

Translation: You don't know what "regulation" means.

I'm more inclined to trust legal experts and law teachers on the definition of "regulation" over your perceived definition.You would. It's one more symptom of your bureaucratic mind.


We are not concerned with "public management over the whole money supply. We are concerned with workers control of the economy.
"Workers control" is again slippery, but there is both a Worker Control Movement and Co-Management policies in the country.Workers control is only "slippery" for someone like you who doesn't believe in it. As to these movements, unless they are actively revolutionary, they are actively challenging Chavez and his ilk, they're little more than social democratic sops.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

ybargaining power is bargaining power in society. it isn't just about with this or that employer. you're being your usual social democratic self, advocating the ridiculous idea of the working class someone running the state.

Not once in my posts did I advocate running the bourgeois state. However, like the eight-hour day, certain measures can only be implemented by legislation and related administration.

[syndicat]

Not once in my posts did I advocate running the bourgeois state. However, like the eight-hour day, certain measures can only be implemented by legislation and related administration.

state policy can be addressed by mass movements, by mass organizations such as unions.

[RED DAVE]

Not once in my posts did I advocate running the bourgeois state. However, like the eight-hour day, certain measures can only be implemented by legislation and related administration.How about the workers implementing the "measures" themselves: all by their little lonesome selves, with no help from any-fucking-one?

Your cast of mind is so bureaucratic that the notion of workers doing this is entirely alien to you.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

state policy can be addressed by mass movements, by mass organizations such as unions.

Right general statement, wrong organizational form.


How about the workers implementing the "measures" themselves: all by their little lonesome selves, with no help from any-fucking-one?

Your cast of mind is so bureaucratic that the notion of workers doing this is entirely alien to you.

We're talking about "this side of the revolution," not "that side of the revolution."

[syndicat]

We're talking about "this side of the revolution," not "that side of the revolution."

things won't magically change "after the revolution." the character of the "revolution" is shaped by the nature of the movement that pushes it thru, that makes the changes. if there is not a worker controlled mass movement, there won't be a worker-controlled society afterwards.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My question, then, is the same as the one I asked you in the other thread on why unions can be a "worker controlled mass movement" and not parties. I'll leave you to answer that question in the other thread, waiting for Red Dave.

[RED DAVE]

My question, then, is the same as the one I asked you in the other thread on why unions can be a "worker controlled mass movement" and not parties. I'll leave you to answer that question in the other thread, waiting for Red Dave.What are you waiting for me to do?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

To respond to the bottom half of Post #51 above.

[RED DAVE]

To respond to the bottom half of Post #51 above.Why does this concern you so much? I rather suspect with you that this side of the revolution or that side, your overwhelming concern is bureaucracy. However, let me say that (a) I support labor legislation such as the 8-hour day; (b) I have been on job sites where the job regulations were negotiated with the employer and maintained by the workers.

Happy?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, in that case, allow me to elaborate by referring to the interplay between grassroots pressure and legislation and related administration. "Direct action" based on unions cannot achieve things like the 8-hour day for society as whole without legislating it or exerting sufficient pressure for legislation. This is what syndicat objects to, the obvious necessity for political struggle and especially tackling state policy head on:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/politics-state-and-t161109/index.html

In the same manner, alleviation for Venezuela's labour cooperatives cannot come without various kinds of state aid that would make Lassalle blush (since he and various other socialists before him were referring merely to "state credit"), like de facto wage subsidies.